Yes, they stack. Section 232 and Section 301 are separate measures under separate statutes, and both apply on top of the ordinary duty rate for the tariff line. The practical consequence catches finance teams out constantly: a product the tariff schedule calls duty-free can land at 50% of customs value, and the number on your landed-cost model will be wrong by a factor of ten if it only read the base rate.
Before you stack, settle the base rate. Chapter 99 remedies are added on top of a base rate, so the base rate has to be right first. The free Duty Spread Checker shows whether your subheading has actually settled which base rate applies.
Base rate + Section 301 + Section 232 = your assessed duty, each reported as its own line on the entry rather than merged into a single percentage. They are not alternatives and the higher one does not absorb the lower one.
There are exceptions where one measure explicitly stands down for another, and they are worth real money. Those are in the section after next.
Household refrigerator-freezers, heading 8418.10.00, imported from
China at a customs value of $100,000.
| Component | Provision | Rate | Duty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base (column 1 general) | 8418.10.00 | Free | $0 |
| Section 301 — China, List 3 | 9903.88.03, note 20(f) | 25% | $25,000 |
| Section 232 — derivative steel & aluminium | 9903.82.09, note 16(c)(vi)–(vii) | 25% | $25,000 |
| Assessed duty | 50% | $50,000 |
The base rate is Free and the duty is $50,000. A refrigerator is not a steel product in any ordinary sense, but it contains steel and aluminium and appears on the derivative-article lists in note 16, so the Section 232 duty reaches it. This is the single most common reason a landed-cost estimate is wrong: the model looked up a rate, found "Free", and stopped.
Fabricated steel brackets, 7326.90.86, from China, $100,000:
| Component | Provision | Rate | Duty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base (column 1 general) | 7326.90.86 | 2.9% | $2,900 |
| Section 301 — China, List 3 | 9903.88.03, note 20(f) | 25% | $25,000 |
| Section 232 — derivative steel | 9903.82.02, note 16(c)(iv) | 50% | $50,000 |
| Note 52 country-wide Section 301 | 9903.05.90 — excluded | 0% | $0 |
| Assessed duty | 77.9% | $77,900 |
Note the fourth line. A third measure — the country-wide Section 301 duty at note 52 — would have applied, and does not, because Section 232 already does. It still gets reported. That exclusion is the subject of the next section and it is worth 10 or 12.5 points.
Note 52(f): goods already dutiable under the Section 232 metals
headings are excluded from the country-wide Section 301 duty. That duty
covers 60 economies at an additional 10% or 12.5% and took effect on
24 July 2026. If your line is paying Section 232, it should not also be paying
this. Heading 9903.05.90 is reported to record the exclusion.
Two cautions on reading that too broadly:
There are also product-level escapes. Laptops under 8471.30.01 are
exempt from the note 52 duty on classification alone, under heading
9903.05.86 — the same goods that avoid the China action because they
sit on the suspended List 4B. From China, a laptop carries no trade remedy at all.
Two lines on the same invoice, from the same supplier, can therefore be 0% and 50%.
Heading 9903.82.03: for articles outside
chapters 72, 73, 74 and 76, where the weight of the applicable metal is
less than 15% of the weight of the imported article, no additional
Section 232 duty applies.
This matters more than anything else in this article for importers of finished goods. Of the 720 provisions in the Section 232 coverage lists, 386 sit outside the metal chapters — machinery, appliances, furniture, fittings — and are therefore capable of falling under the weight test. On a 25% or 50% duty, being able to demonstrate that a product is under the threshold is frequently the largest recoverable number in a compliance review.
The catch is evidentiary, and it is where the work is: you must be able to show the metal weight. An invoice does not state it. A bill of materials, an engineering drawing or a supplier declaration does. If you import finished goods containing incidental metal and have never assembled that evidence, that is the project worth funding.
Two related claims run in the same direction and are also not automatic:
reduced rates for 85% US content (headings 9903.82.06–.08,
.23–.24) and 95% UK content (.04/.05).
None of these are applied by default. Silence resolves in the
higher-duty direction, and it is the importer who has to claim down.
The same aluminium sheet, 7606.11.30, $100,000, by country of
origin:
| Origin | Section 232 provision | Rate | Duty |
|---|---|---|---|
| China | 9903.82.02 | 50% | $50,000 |
| Germany (EU) | 9903.82.02 | 50% | $50,000 |
| United Kingdom | 9903.82.04 | 25% | $25,000 |
| Russia | 9903.85.67 | 200% | $200,000 |
Section 232 is not a China measure. It applies to allies: German and Japanese metal carries the same 50% as Chinese metal. Sourcing decisions made to avoid Section 301 do not avoid Section 232, and a supply-chain move from China to the EU on a metals line changes nothing about the 232 exposure. That is a mistake we see reasoned through backwards fairly often.
| Measure | Authority | Scope | Typical rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Section 232 — metals | Note 16 | Steel, aluminium, copper; articles and derivatives | 50% (UK 25%) |
| Section 232 — derivatives | Note 16(c)(vi)–(viii), (xi) | Goods outside the metal chapters containing them | 25% |
| Section 301 — China | Note 20 | Lists 1–3 and 4A by subheading | 25% / 7.5% |
| Section 301 — country-wide | Note 52 | 60 economies, from 24 July 2026 | 10% / 12.5% |
| Antidumping / countervailing | Commerce orders | Per case and per exporter | Varies |
The IEEPA tariffs are not on this list. They were struck down by the Supreme Court on 20 February 2026 and are being refunded — though the schedule still prints them, which is its own trap. See our guide to IEEPA refunds and the look-alike duties.
Every figure in this article is real output from the Vectelos duty engine, not an illustration — it computes each Chapter 99 measure separately from the statutory notes, names the provision and subdivision behind each, and applies the note 52 exclusion where Section 232 has already attached. It also tells you what it has not decided: the metal-weight test and the reduced-rate content claims are flagged on the line rather than assumed, because an invoice does not carry the facts they turn on. All 13,801 base rates are verified line-by-line against the published USITC schedule and re-verified on each revision.
Rates and provisions were read from HTSUS 2026 Revision 19 and the duty figures computed by our own engine from U.S. notes 16, 20 and 52, on a customs value of $100,000 per example. The Section 232 coverage counts (720 provisions, 386 outside chapters 72/73/74/76) are from the note 16 coverage lists as published in that revision. Section 301 product exclusions are not applied — many are written as product descriptions rather than code lists and cannot be resolved from a subheading alone — so the Section 301 figures shown are base coverage and an exclusion may reduce them.
This article is general information about the US tariff schedule. It is not legal advice, not a customs ruling, and not a determination about your goods. Vectelos is not a licensed customs broker and does not file entries. Trade-remedy coverage, rates and exclusions change frequently — the schedule was revised seven times in the eight weeks before publication — and the figures here are as published on 18 September 2026. Confirm with a licensed customs broker or customs attorney before relying on any duty figure, and consider a binding ruling where the amount at stake justifies it.